tv The Kudlow Report CNBC May 6, 2013 7:00pm-8:00pm EDT
continues, it was led by apple. it all came down to yield at 3% saved it. right here on "mad money", i'm jim cramer and i will see you tomorrow! [ music playing ] to come before we begin this evening with blakeing news...a short time ago, the senate voted to pass an internet sales tax. john harwood live in washington with the late e. good evening, john. >> good evening, larry, the senate just finished voting after holding the voting opened for senators to arrive in town. 69-27. they passed this bill. right now, there are a lot of online sales taxes that are on the books as owed but are not collected because consumers don't file tell with their tax return. senate bill would force states that have sales taxes to levy those taxes in states where it applies and not have consumers
be obligated to file those on their tax return. however, larry, this is not likely to go anywhere because they tell me the appetite for anything that raises taxes on anybody, even though they're owed and not checked is not very great. look for the house to send it to the house judiciary committee. study it to death, not pass it in this congress. >> all right. we'll leave it there. many thanks to john harwood, we present it very much. -- appreciate it very much. let's bring in texas republican senator ted cruz who apparently voted against the bill. welcome back, mr. cruz, tell us in brief why did you vote against this internet sales hike? >> larry, it's great to be back with you, in my view, i think the top authority, the republican or democrat should be restoreing check growth. the last four years our economy
has grown an average of 0.9% a year. i think it makes no sense whatsoever at a time of struggling economic growth for the united states senate to be passing a massive new internet sales tax, extending $23 billion in sales taxes to small businesses, selling online all over the country. i think it will kill jobs. it will hurt small businesses. it will impose massive compliance costs. it will, in particular, hurt the little guy. that's why i voted against it. that's why i hope the house votes this bill down. >> you know, supporters of this bill have argued it's going to somehow level the playing field. can i just focus a moment on your point about sll business? >> sure. >> won't they have to have unbelievable compliance costs for 9,500, close to 10,000 sales tax jurisdiction, which the big boys don't have to have? i mean, is this really a level playing field or is there something else going on here?
>> larry, you are exactly right. imagine you are a small back, single mom, a hispanic business other than, you are selling online. this bill means are you subject to the tax laws of 46 states that have sales taxes an over 9,600 jurisdictions all over the county, counties, municipality, you've got to no. 1 file with each of those 46 states, either monthly or quarterly, knob two, you are subject to 9,600 audits from every locality across the country. thest cos are enormous t. proponents of the bill, they point to small businesses that are bricks and mortar businesses. those are not the real people pushing this bill. look tarc small bricks and mar mortar sellers are losing their business to the giant big box, number two, to the large internet retailers. but the large internet retailers already have a physical presence in most states. so nine of the top ten internet
retailers collect sales taxes in all 46 states. >> they're already doing it. i mean, the amusing thing about this, just what you said, amazon, for years, opposed the interstate internet sales tax, but now that they've got whatever, distribution centres in nearly all the state, they flip-flop and they're in favor of it now. so that imstraights your point, e -- illustrates your point, doesn't it? >> i think an unholy alliance of bricks or mortar stores or online retailers ganging up with politicians who want more tax money and the people who are the targets here are small businesses. they're the little guy, they're the ones that don't have armies of accountants, that don't have physical presences that are struggling to get going. as you know, larry, 2/3 of all jobs come from small businesses. we got 2.3 million hispanic small business owners.
this vote hammers the little guys. it benefits the giant corporations. it's exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. >> one point, off that, one of your op-eds. you say physical stores do not have to collect taxes based on where the customer lives. now that's a point i hadn't thought about. could you just expand on that? >> sure, if you go into a bricks and mortar store, you buy a good, they don't a ask you, larry, where you live. they collect taxes for that jurisdiction where they live. what is happening to online retailers is they got to collect tax force every jurisdiction on earth, which means if you happen to be based in texas, you are running a small business selling online, you got to collect tax force jerry brown's california, for mayor bloomberg's nanny state. you got to collect taxes for politicians all over the country, none of whom are accountable to your vote. if you are a brick and mortar retailer, you can vote the guys out of office, the interfet guys have no account ability, no
ability to restrain taxes. and this is about big government and big business ganging up on the little guy. i think it's terrible for economic growth. >> just last one, real quick, sir, i'm out of time. is this the precursor of a national sales tax, once you cross interstate, you are crossing constitutional jurisdiction lines, isn't that what this is? this is the first step towards a national sales tax european-style? >> it certainly sets up the possibility for get and there's a reason the supreme court said it's unconstitutional for one state to tax somebody across the state that doesn't have a physical presence there, doesn't have a direct nexus there. because you want your politicians accounted to the people. this is a power grab, an internet tax t. internet is a haven for entrepreneurial activity. we need to protect it not tax it. >> thank you, senator ted cruz, we appreciate your vote and coming open "the kudlow report."
>> absolutely, thank you, larry. how will this new internet sales tax affect businesses and markets. the ceo of best buy, that being brad ander zorn, we bring if brian berent, the head of global policy at ebay and jason trennor, managing partner strategus ebay partners. he jones us on set tonight. mr. anderson, what's your response to what senator cruz said? >> i think it's a largely ab surt argument. -- absurd argument. first of all, any business un$2 million is exempted from the bill. there is virtually no retailer that has a cost advantage as big as the 6-10% that many states have in a sales advantage, in sales tax. you are now applying that only to some forms of refail? that make nos rational sense to me. >> brian, let me ask you for a response to that response, one
of the points senator cruz made is the compliance costs on small businesses are going to be huge and we've never really taxed businesses on an interstate basis before. you don't sister to ask where the guy is from. so is this new? is this the level of playing field or is this an added burden on businesses? >> well, it is, absolutely, an added burden, especially on small businesses. and this legislation really only exempts businesses of below a million dollars which in the world of retail are tiny, almost microbusinesses. that wrots wrong here is what it means is really small businesses aren't going to have to physical out and collect the tax for 46 different states but tax collectors for 46 different states are going to be able to enforce the law on them, treating a small business, a microbusiness, the same as we treat multi-billion dollar retailers, that's a mistake. there's got to be a what i to do this ting in a more balanced way that allows small businesses to
grow and, if anything, takes care of a problem really among the big billion dar big boys. >> brad anderson, it sound like a power play from the larger businesses to the smaller businesses, isn't it? >> this is partially an absurd argument. a lot of the retailers are billion dollar businesses. by the way, they're competing with local businesses that hire in given areas and they have that 6-10% disadvantage. >> so are the large box businesses the smiler businesses on pain street are getting hurt by it anyway, you are going to make it worse, you are going to take out the smaller businesses online, that's the intent here, is it not? >> no, it is not the internt. the intern is the to create a level playing field in which all businesses compete in relationship to the law on a fair basis. >> jason, you want to create a level playing field, why don't we lower the sales tax on every business? think about that. instead of raising them, why don't we lower them for a
change? >> that would be pro-growth. >> you tax less, you get more of it. >> tax is a price, like anything else, the price goes up, you get less demand. listen, there are 700,000 word in the old testament. there is 400,000 in the new testament. there is 3 million words in the u.s. tax code. this is absurd to be talking about taxing more when we have absolutely no ability as a country to get ahold of our spending. this is really just the equivalent of going through the canuckss and the sofa to get more change. the problem with sales tax is they're ensiddious. i believe they're insidious. they never go away. this is the difference between pro business and pro market. if you are against the stacks, you are for pro business as opposed if you are against this tax, you are against pro market force, it seems to pe, which it tends to favor the individual consumer. >> let me get your take on this,
gentleman, brian bieron. if you want to lower the playing field, let's lower the sales tax. up with of the points senator cruz said, is a good point we're so far behind, historic averages, a job staff of 10-12 million. a ge gap of 3 trillion dollars, why would we want to increase tax at all on anybody? >> you know, larry, that's a great point there is no question that increasing tax burdens on any business, especially small businesses around the country are not going to grow the economy. they're not going to grow jobs, they're not going to create the future big business that hopefully will be a competitor to today's established big retailers. so this really is ability. we're fighting over a small business definition that's really tiny. it's remarkable that businesses that sell tens of millions of dollars in every one of their stores, that they would be fighting to put a new tax burden on businesses at the million
dollar level. you know, a business like best buy has 1,300 stores. they do great business. they sell more than $30 million per store and they're talking about leveling the playing field with a business that sells 1 million and ebay would say take it up to 10 million? maybe there is press press den with the get you are treating honest retailers who have more tax attorneys and account ants than these small employees. >> that's a key point. i'll ask you the same question, instead of leveling the playing field by raising tax, why don't you level it by cutting taxes? sales taxes are going up. they're very high around the country. the bigger the state, the bigger the sales tax. i think it would be good for business to lower the sales tax. not worry about what small internet companies are doing. lower the sales tax. even it out. >> you will never get me an argument on that issue.
that isn't realistic. that's not what's going to tran spire. if i got involved with the job created alliance. the core thing is the other side of this, imagine if you are a small business trying to sell, my business is consumer electronics. you are trying to sem it against the billion dar plus. you are trying to sell it against that, you got a 6-10.5 advantage, you are dead before you start. >> if you cut tax, if you cut the complexity to tax and the rate of the tax, you can get rit rid of all those tax lawyers, you'd be more profitable at best buy. >> i totally agree with that. >> now, i got up with. i'm glad, finally. all right. anyway, thanks senator ted cruz and brad ander zorn, jason is going to hang out with us now. friday's jobs report, pretty good news, but the u.s. economy is way behind where it needs to be on jobs and gdp. next up, i'm going to give you
my take and where we are falling so far short rmts later on, branding u.s. aliens amnesty will cost $3 trillion. does it include the economic growth to immigration? is it dynamics scoring? we will debate that with the man that wrote the study. senator marco rubio said more immigration will bring us more prosperity. take a listen. >> it puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the united states potentially in the world. once and for all it opens it for those legally, it does so in a way that's fair and passionate. and it isn't unfair to the feel that did it the right way. >> stand with mark quo rubio. tomorrow, oil demand, reaching a tipping point or plenty to go around? we explore both sides of the issue and what it could mean for
investors an consumers caught in the middle. "squawk box" at 6:00 p.m. eastern on cnbc. you hurt my feelings, todd. i did? when visa signature asked everybody what upgraded experiences really mattered... you suggested luxury car service instead of "strength training with patrick willis." come on todd! flap them chicken wings. [ grunts ] well, i travel a lot and umm... [ male announcer ] at visa signature, every upgraded experience comes from listening to our cardholders. visa signature. your idea of what a card should be.
and never back down. who believe the american dream doesn't just happen, it's something you have to work for. ♪ we're for those kinds of people. because we're that kind of airline. and we never stop looking for a better way. it's how we've grown into america's largest domestic airline. we are southwest.
perspective a transfer of weapons from iran to hezbollah, a shia militia group, which is an enemy of the state of israeli. the syrian government has said it was a research facility that was targeted. it said that 42 syrian soldiers were killed in that israeli airstrike, but, really the underlying complicationings of this latest military attack by israeli are threatening to push the syrian conflict beyond the borders of syria cushions across the region. right now, by many estimate, it is a proxy war of sort, with different countries, including turkey, iran the saudi arabian government as well as others in the region involved in supporting the rebels or supporting the syrian regime, so it is a situation that is rapidly escalating cushions the concern here in the united states is that it may drag the united states into the conflict directly. there is no doubt by many people's analysis, the israeli airstrikes threaten to drag the united states, particularly if any of the syrian allie,
including hezbollah cushions iran decide to respond to the latest airstrikes over the weekend. that could certainly have implications for the united states one way or the other. u.s. secretary of state john kerry is on his way to russia to meet with the russian president. many have been arguing that the only way this conflict can be solved if there is a diplomatic solution cushions that would certainly have to close the gap between the united states an russia, which has been a close allie of the syrian regime. so far, there is no indication that gap is getting any farrower. >> all right, many thanks to the update. ayman aldean, we appreciate it. i want to switch gears. i want to go back to the american economy. really good news from april's report on friday is all the pessimistic end of the world, spring swoon forecasters, they were dead wrong. it beat handily wall street expectation. all right. type. now, some bad news, there are also some real potholes in our
road to recovery. we still have 22 million people out of work or 81 employed. as a result, there is a 10-12ple jobs shortfall in terms of our long run employment gains. cushions worst of all, from 1947 through 2007, the country's real gdp increased by 3 poin.25% per year, 3.25%. because the economy is stalled for over a decade, we have now fallen $3 trillion short of where we should be. in order to get there, we need free market incentives for work, investment, health, retirement. you need to keep the heat on the spending industry. don't forget a sound dollar. even with all this, we'd have to grow by over 5% for more than ten years to catch up to our own historical performance. that is a very tall order cushions it troubles me enormously. my take on the economy.
however, however, there is a much better story about stocks. warren buffet already spoke out about stocks today, he's bullish. listen to what he said on cnbc this morning. we'll be right back. >> you will see numbers a lot hire than this in your lifetime. . >> it seems like we are hitting new highs almost every day. >> that's the kind of thing that will catch people's attention. >> there is now a conversation by catholic charitable deductions, limiting it to a 28% rate. i don't think it will have a dramatic impact. >> interest rates have a powerful impact on all assets. you will see marketings far higher than this. we will have another bubble. it will continue to burst. we will continue to have access, as you can tell. all in one place. tdd: 1-800-345-2550 introducing schwab etf onesource.. .
tips in the k pmg insider case has send a plea deal. bryan shaws exchanging cash allegedly for stock tips. he will plead guilty to one count of securities fraud and he'll pay back the $1.3 million. meantime, a small forces operatives was ready to fly to benghazi the night of the attack last year. according to a state department official, that team was told not to go to benghazi by military commanders. that official is testifying before congress on wednesday. nbc news obtained part of that testimony today. and president obama pediatricing that the u.s. will become a net exporter of gas by 20 when the. that's according to financial times. that would mean that if department of energy would have to approve more terminals to export liquified natural gas. the president is doing this because blocking lmg exports would go against free trade. and we end this evening on a lighter note, president barack
obama played golf today by himself, not necessarily news worthy, the fact that he played with republican senators bob corker, that makings it more interesting. the white house says the golf game didn't have a political agenda, be you the president is trying anything he can to bring the two parties together. by the way, senator chambliss got a hole in one, that means drinks are on him. >> for everybody. i want to go back to this exporting of liquid natural gas, which is a plus by the president. >> a huge plus. >> between our energy independence in the next ten years, which means we won't have to import and we actually will be selling stuff, our trade deficit will evaporate. >> a little less than half of our trade deficit comes from energy alone. you won't talk about the knockdown effects in terms of national security and all the rest of it. so this is a big deal. there is no two ways about it. the president, i'm so glad he's moving in this way, to add this
to immigration, there is a chance the u.s. could grow out of its fiscal problems, more than any other country in the g-7. >> let me connect the dot, exporting liquid natural gas, not importing oil any more. okay. trade deficit going down, dollar going up. america becomes the place to incest. it's the place to invest. >> you are already seeing this, i think what's being reflected in the stockmarket right now. people are assuming that it's just easy money on the part of the fed that's driving the stockmarket higher. there is no question, that's a big part of it. but i do think the president's comments over the weekend also could be an important part of the story, ewhat is being reflective in stock prices. >> and i love the whole story. i give obama a lot of credit for this exporting free markets thing. thank you ever so much. now, a big number jumped into the immigration debate today $6.3 trillion. that's how much the new her tanl foundation report says it will
on theat gang of eight bipartisan bill. they found unlawful immigrants will cost them $6.3 trillion. here now is the author of that study, a senior research fellow with the heritage foundation and douglas holtz eek ea k on. i think it's a useful service to price out to cost here. i want to ask you in your calculation, is there an economic growth component. part of this bill will be brainiac, entrepreneurs, engineers and other enno rate issors that might -- inno saitors that might give the economy torque. is that inside your numbers? >> no, we have only looked at this study in the cost of
amnesty. what you are doing is taking 10 million immigrants with an average level of 8th grade, giving them social programs, social security, medicare and odamacare, the net cost of that is that you are going to increase government spending by about $9 trillion. these individuals will pay about $3 trillion in taxes, but there will be a net deficit of $6 trillion that has to be paid by u.s. taxpayers. now, there are other components to the bill. we have not offset those. we have not studied those yet, but i will be doing get what i would say is the fiscal impact of those other components really depends upon the skill level of the immigrants you are bringing in. if you bring in an immigrant with a college education, on average, they're going to pay about $30,000 a year more in taxes than they take out in government benefits. on the other hand, if you bring in immigrants that have a 10th grade education, they're exactly the opposite every singlier. they cost $30,000 more in benefits than they pay in, in taxes. that's the problem of what we
have been doing is bringing in massive numbers of low skill immigrants. >> let me go to doug. you heard what robert has to say, one of the immigrants for him might create a new amazon or microsoft. there is always that. what is your general take on the heritage study? >> i think there are, first of all, they are to be congratulated for contributing to the debate. it's an important debate. there are pieces in this study that i think are opened to further scrutiny, there are pieces left out as you mentioned. if you look at what's in this study, there are 10/11 million people here inlawfully, the presumption is that they would reside here for 50 years, so 6.3 trillion is over 50 years. over those 50 years, they become legal and get full access to federal benefits. that's just unrealistic. we are not going to get all ten made legal, felons aren't legal. those three misdemeanors can't be eligible. not everyone will make it to citizenship. you have to be employed at ten years above the poverty line
employment. so it's an unrealistic upper bound. it also assumes there are no american dream. these are people in poverty now. they remain in poverty. their children are in poverty. it's a study biassed against finding any success lowering the price tag. >> you mentioned larry, i want to emphasize this, there is a lot left out. we're looking at a comprehensive immigration reform. this is a tiny slice. among the things left out are all the substantive criticisms levied to his 2007 study, in the six years in between, he has not done one thing for those methods. my question is why this couldn't have been done better. >> two questions, number one the sons an daughters of undocumented illegal immigrants might make good. i think that's an important point. this is america. >> here, our study is the only study that examines get we take the existing data on upward mobility. we look at the education level of the parents of the kids of
illegal immigrant children and we use the existing data to project what their educational atakenment will be and -- attainment will be. when you do that, we find out not only do they pay back the $6.3 billion deficit their parents left, they, themselves, will also be in deficit. they will receive more benefits than they pay in taxes. it's all in this study. they truly are a lot better than their parents, they're starteding out at a very low level. you can't expect them to make up these costs. it's completely untrue, the methodology is considerably different in areas where it needed to be improved and the methods that we're using are the exact same methods used by the national academy of sciences, back in their report on the fiscal and economic costs of immigration. incidentally, they don't find all of these great economic benefits for american citizens that this allegedly come from
immigration. >> the thing is, look, we're not going to deport the 11 million undocumented. we've already made that decision. we also are going to import, bring in, you know the h 1 b i call tell brainiac the kids that went to our university, let them stay here. in other words, there is a lot of entrepreneurialship growth in this immigration story. it seems to me it would be a pity if we used a static analysis rather than a more dynamic analysis of what could be a great case if people are coming to america. >> you are not going to end up with any kind of economic campaign that is going to pay for the $6.3 trillion loss that's right on the surface here. >> go ahead. >> wait, i don't understand how you can say get number one, you didn't do the analysis. this is $6.3 trillion over 50 years. that about 2% of projected federal spending of periods under a percent of gdp.
it takes almost nothing in the way of beneficial economic growth over longer periods to outweigh that fiscal impact. this has always been a debate about growth, about the robust private sector. about the opportunity for advance him and to measure the steeler tasks and spending is just wrong. >> we do look at the growth of income of these imlegal immigrants. >> also, you can't say that we didn't study these things. you haven't produced a study either. you've produced about five paragraphs of analysis. we would really like to see all of the magic effects that you have in your analysis and why your study contradicts the national asad my of sciences who found exactly the opposite thing. >> the national academy of sciences did a full blown 300-year studies of the life cycle impacts. so if you want to go there, that's fine. if you want to do the economic analysis, that's fine. my point, robert, is simply this. you got a comprehensive bill unconsideration. it has employer ver fix, ag
programs, h 1 bs, a change in the core visa system to a merit base away from family unification. you throw all of that out, analyze it strictly on the merits of one narrow position, will you you assume 100% takeup -- let me cover the number of people. >> i've got to we're going to come back and have the debate another time. we're not going to settle it tonight. i'm sorry about that, heritage foundation. thank you very much. american action forum, but, i want to bring in somebody else, dean garfield, he's president and ceo of the information technology industry council. that council represents facebook, google, intel, many other tech companies who are getting heavily involved in the immigration. you are on the hill. you are lobbying every day for reform. first question, will the heritage foundation study do you any harm? >> i don't think so. this is a once in a generation opportunity to align
immigration, our immigration system with our economic best interest as as has been pointed out, the study doesn't really cover the positive economic impact of high skill immigration. so i don't believe it will. >> i mean, you are focused a lot on the h 1 b, correct me if i'm wrong. are you focused on the students graduating from our universities, letting them stay and the limits to both are being raised. is that the principle focus of what facebook and google and intelliand the others -- intel and the others are fighting for in this bill? >> our principle focus is job creation. we know innovation is policy. we care about getting more high skilled labor here in the u.s. and having the u.s. be the platform for innovation in the world. we also care about making sure our immigration policies are aligned as i said before with our economic interests. this is an opportunity to do that, both in the permanent visa system as well as with the h1b
system, getting more start ups, getting more stemmed, all of those will lead to job creation. >> that's the part. it's hard for me to understand. i understand some statistics. i was trained as an economist. how do you know? somewhere in this visa opening is someone is going to invent the new amazon or microsoft or google? how can we be sure? how can we quantify that? that's what i don't get. >> by doing that, we can look at history, 40% were founded by immigrants or immigrant's kids. of the top research institutions in the united states, 70% of the patents filed out of those institutions are being filed by immigrants. so we know the story, which is na immigration policy is innoization policy. it leads to economic growth. it's a virtual cycle. it's one we want to continue. >> you know, up with of the things that was interesting to me, going back to the mid-1980s, reagan signed a rather rib
liberal immigration bill. we had a lot of immigrants come into this country, the ''80s and '90s were high tide. those were also extremely prosperous decades under republican and democratic presidents. they were very prosperous decades even with the inflow of immigrants. >> oh, there is no doubt, they're aligned. so, the virtue of our country is in many respects are our diversity. i'm an immigrant, myself. i know there is a moral component to this, but there is also a compeling economic case to be made. there is no doubt in my mind and no doubt from all the studies that we've seen that by having high skill immigration will lead to economic growth in this country, which will actually unleash the kind of inno saitiveness -- innovativeness and job creation. >> can your group of all these famous individuals and tech companies, can you swallow the rest of the bill? because it's all going to be of
the piece. can you take the rest of the bill, the issue of what to do with the illegals now the citizenship issue, the border security issue. can you work through that? >> absolutely. as senator rubio has said, as the president said, this is a starting point. it's a very good starting point in order to get what we want and the country need for job creation. we know we have to seize the opportunity in front of us today. we are fully prepaved to do the -- prepared to do the work. >> now, folks, warren buffet said it clearly here on cnbc, he said he thinks stocks will go up. he is not a fan of bonn. is he right? later, a republican beat a 30-year congressional liberal in the massachusettsat race. the latest polls have the surprising answer to that question the gop candidate gabrielle gomez will be with us in just a moment. please stay right here. tomorrow, oil demand,
reaching a tipping point or plenty to go around? we explore both side of the issue. "squawk box" tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. eastern on cnbc. have hail damage to both their cars. ted ted is trying to get a hold of his insurance agent. maxwell is not. he's on geico.com setting up an appointment with an adjuster. ted is now on hold with his insurance company. maxwell is not and just confirmed a 5:30 time for tuesday. ted, is still waiting. yes! maxwell is out and about... with ted's now ex-girlfriend. wheeeee!
whoo! later ted! online claims appointments. just a click away on geico.com. see life in the best light. outdoors, or in. transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. maybe even a little better. visit your eyecare professional today to ask about our newest lenses, transitions vantage and transitions xtractive lenses. experience life well lit.
high. oregon admits they will continue to go higher. take a look at warren buffet. >> probably in my lifetime. certainly in your lifetime, you will see markets far higher than this. the retention of earnings in the history of the growth, will cause stocks to go higher over time. they're not getting everything out of stocks in terms of the dividends they take compared to the earnings. so that retention builds it up. >> all right, jason, i ask you is warren buffet right? >> i think so, too. i hope it's in his lifetime, within his lifetime, i think he's right. i think it has a lot to do with the fact that right now you are not just fighting the feds, you are fighting everybody. you are fighting every bank in the world, bank of japan, bank of england, swiss national bank and the european central bank. as we were talking about before, it's hard to know what the right multiple is on your stocks if you are capitalizing on earned
interest rates. it's not 14 or 15 times earnings. it could be 20 times earnings or higher him i think there is a lot more to go. my goodness, if are you able get good policies on the fiscal side, or on the regulatory side, the -- although liquid failure gas exports. >> that is a good deal, you get immigration, boy, you could be talking about the real thing. >> federal reserves senior loan survey out today, very, very bullish. more loans are being made across the board with better credits. what do you think of that? because banks and financials led the way today. >> listen, that's correctal. because again as we were talking about, the velocity money continues to go down t. fed has been dropping money out of helicopters. it's been going directly into bank vaults. it also speaks to the littles of monetary policy. my foodness, if banks start to
make loans, actually get somewhat more aggressive, also, if you start to see equity build up in homes. you have arested the decline in housing prices, it's good for capital formation. most is formed out of home equity lines of credit. a lot of good things can happen when you can rest on housing prices. >> it strikes me the pessimists have been quite wrong for a number of reasons, eventually, they will get it right. one of the things they seem to have gotten wrong was on this business of the budget-cutting sequester, if you go back an look at the congressional budget office, these big government molds, they expected hundreds of thousands of jobs to be lost. that has not happened. nor i think is it likely to happen. in fact the whole issue of a little tiny cut in government spending is not affecting the economy. >> no, actually, i think this is a big miscalculation on the part of the administration, now some argue is maybe we should do more. maybe we should shrink the size of the government and actually
increase the size of the private sector of the economy, which is much more productive, i think we can all agree. >> and the ceo is wrong, i'm not going to mention any names, here on wall street, a lot of houses were wrong. the jobs report we got on friday, you are not going to get hundreds of thousands of job loss, which is what the government predicted under the budget. >> no way. what's sad, though, larry is we could be getting hundreds of thousands of more jobs created if we could unleash all the of the cash on the corporate balance heights is, if we could get more business confidence for people that take on more risk. you could really get the economy in a much stronger -- >> sit of real value right now? >> i think technology is the most interesting one. i think apple's moved last week to float bond to increase the dividend is a very meaningful change. i think when we look back in years forward as a very, very meaningful change in terms of tech's ability to provide
income, to provide yield, to investors. tech has had a real men don't pay dividends attitude towards increasing the dividend yield now. i think that's broken. i think it's a very, very big change. it can allow the leadership of the mark to change away from some of the defensive sectors to some of the more sick lick am ones. >> i guess we have to leave it there. well put. i hope you are right. i hope warren buffet is right. it seems like a long shots, republican gabrielle gomez is on the heels of the massachusetts senate race, can gomez pull off what would be a tremendous upset? mr. gomez is going to join us next up on "the kudlow report." . digits
of the current congressman ed marky. joining us now is the republican senate nom mee from massachusettes, the aforementioned mr. gomez, welcome. why are the polls tightening? >> you know, i think the polls are indicative of what people care about. that is the economy, getting jobs back in massachusetts. myopoint is engaged on everything but the economy. an he's talking about people's
pledge an things fa are not related to the economy. >> you know, we were talking earlier in the show how far the u.s. has fallen behind its long-term trends. we're like $3 trillion short of where we should be on gdp. 10 or 12 million jobs short of where we should be on that measure. if you were elected, how do you get this economy growing from 2%, let's say, to 4 or 5%. how do you get the unemployment rate down from 7.5% down to 4%? how do you do it? >> i think you focus on the problem we have right now. that's the $17 trillion in debt. we have economic policies coming from d.c. that are not business friendly. we need to have companies that have confidence that the government has their back. we need to get policies that are business friendly. for instance, on obama care, i agree with the principle, it should have been done at the state level, it is costing more than it should of. on dodd frank, you have small businesses going to banks, we
need to get business-friendly policies so the companies can invest in themselves. >> you know, i hear a lot of ceos, large, medium, small, especially the business at the round table, not only. they want tax reform, gabrielle. they want to be competitive again. >> absolutely. we need to have a comprehensive tax reform. i think we need to start looking at that time corporate tax loopholes. it's a tax reform. we should have a tax code that isn't thousands of pages long. it should be simpler so people can function and work on the economy. >> so your biggest issue it sound shrike going to be the economy. with that in mind, what is your biggest beef? what is your major criticism of ed marky? >> well, my criticism is that ed parky has never been in the real world. he's focused on everything but the economy. he's not done anything to stimulate the economy. i spent fin years in the military as an aircraft pilot an navy seal and more importantly
in the private sector growing businesses to be skechl. i'd like to stand side-by-side on a debate. >> is he a tax payer? >> i think mr. marky would welcome any kind of tax, absolutely. >> let me ask you about immigration reform. we were talking about it earlier in the show. where will you come out with the marco rubio gang of eight? there is a few study out by the heritage foundation that's rather gloomy. the debate goes on. you, yourself, are a descendant of the imgrapts. >> i'm the oldest son of two columbian immigrants. i'm with marco rubio. the first thing you need to do is secure the border and set the milestones the group of eight have set out. i'm with them on the path to citizenship. in reality, if you don't do anything, you are creating amnesty. this is a pro jobs growth the
gang of eight has out there. >> why is that pro job growth, in your view why, do you see immigration reform? why do you see immigrants coming into the country as pro job growth? >> will you have 11 million undocumented workers right now. you give them a path way to citizenship. they will start businesses. they will hire people, start businesses that grow. this is a pro jobs growth bill. i think marco rubio explains it quite well. >> where do you come out on the gun control debate, which looks more upon congress, one never knows? >> yeah, i would have voted in front of the senator toomey-mansion bill. i was a seal, i fired every one of these weapons, i think you need to close the gun loophole. it's the same background check if you buy it from a dealer, you should have the same check at a gun show or internet deal. >> we have 20 seconds left, do have you enough to run a true campaign? >> absolutely.
we are confident to go head to toe with congressman marky. we look forward to our business perspective an differences as well as everything else. >> gabriel gomez, pro growth, from what i gather, thank you for coming on. all the best on the campaign trail. that it for this evening's show. i'm larry kudlow. more free market capitalism coming up. [ male announcer ] at charles schwab, we've committed to setting the bar high by going low. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 .0 with the lowest operating expenses tdd# 1-800-345-2550 .0 in their respective lipper categories -- tdd# 1-800-345-2550 lower than ishares tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and vanguard. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and with all our etfs commission-free tdd# 1-800-345-2550 when traded online in a schwab account, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it leaves our investors with more money to invest. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 something they've come to count on with us. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 so as investors continue to set their portfolio goals high, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 we help keep their costs of investing low. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 give us a call and open an account today. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 carefully consider prospectus information, including tdd# 1-800-345-2550 investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 request a prospectus by calling schwab at 800-435-4000. tdd# 1-800-345-2550